Gulph Creek Stone Arch Bridge - Delaware Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 3—Historic Context for Common Historic Bridge Types 3.2.3 Reinforced Concrete Luten Arch History and Description: As James L. Cooper (18, p.37) has stated, “Daniel B. Luten did more than any other single person to advance the movement from concretesteel to reinforced concrete bridge design….” What Cooper means by this is that Luten diverged from the relatively conservative Melan/von Emperger/Thacher line of development that placed the importance of steel (or iron) as a load-bearing element in bridge arches above that of concrete, and aggressively promoted a system that stemmed more from the Monier methodology that gave primacy to concrete in load bearing, with metal as a strengthening element. And he did so with great success. As Cooper also notes, “Luten’s considerable influence reached towards the continent’s corners from Maine to California and from Canada to Mexico. Probably a thousand out of approximately twelve thousand of his structures remain to bear witness to his once ubiquitous presence.” Luten (1869-1946) received a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of Michigan in 1894, and taught civil engineering and surveying there for a year after graduation. From 1896 to 1900, he taught at Purdue University as an instructor of architectural and sanitary engineering. Finding the life of an academic too confining, he left the university in 1900, secured the first of many patents for reinforced concrete bridges, and published a catalog for the “Timber-Tie Concrete Arch Company” (19, p. 4). He only secured one contract in response to his catalog, but the following year he formed the National Bridge Company. With an entrepreneurial flair that surpassed his considerable skills as an engineer, he began to market and construct reinforced concrete bridges across the Midwest. He also began submitting articles to the Engineering News-Record and the Railroad Gazette about this time, and continued to be a major contributor to these and other professional publications for more than twenty years. Although Luten built all three types of reinforced concrete arches, including open spandrel deck arches and open spandrel through arches, an article entitled “The Proper Curvature for a Filled Spandrel Arch,” published in the September 12, 1902, edition of Railroad Gazette illustrates the bridge form that became the focus of Luten’s design practice, the filled spandrel “timber” tied deck arch (20, p. 11). Luten was prolific in his acquisition of patents, and he acquired nearly fifty by the early 1920s. He was granted so many patents that, according to him, it was virtually impossible for anyone else to build a reinforced concrete arch without infringing on one of his designs. To a large extent, Luten’s strategy for success, and that of other entrepreneurial designers, relied on exploitation of the patent system in the United States. As bridge historian James Hippen (21, p. 6) has stated, “the trick became to include in a patent claim as many as one could of the possible arrangements of reinforcing and other elements in a concrete bridge, and then collect royalties or sue for infringement” (21). Eventually the royalty costs paid by private and public bridge builders and the cost of battling Luten in court became so great that an organized resistance to his way of doing business arose. The tide of opposition from the engineering profession and the legal 3-58
Chapter 3—Historic Context for Common Historic Bridge Types establishment finally washed over Luten in 1918, and his patents, along with some of Thacher’s, were invalidated. Despite his defeats, by 1919 Luten claimed to have designed at least 17,000 bridges in all but three states. Although the actual number may be lower, it is certain that he did more than any other designer or builder to encourage the construction of reinforced concrete arches by county and municipal governments, and hundreds of Luten designed bridges still exist across the country, although the largest groupings may be found in California, the states of the Midwest, and in the states along the Atlantic seaboard. The popularity of his design did not continue far beyond the first two decades of the twentieth century, however, due both to the patent issues and because his designs were simply not efficient in the use of steel and concrete. Other engineers eventually surpassed Luten in the area he thought most his own; the practical combination of theory and empirical practice. Significance Assessment: Thousands of Luten arches likely survive nationwide out of the 17,000 claimed to have been built during the 1910s and 1920s. They are characterized as having either open or closed spandrels, single and multiple rib or barrel arches of short to intermediate span (40 to 150 feet). However, since this describes most arch forms, documentation is needed to established whether a bridge is a Luten patented or designed example. Documentation includes bridge plaques, city and county records and comparison to known Luten bridges in state bridge surveys. Documented Luten arches with a high level of integrity, although quite common, are significant within the context of this study if they retain their character-defining features. Character-defining features include the arch ring, spandrels, ribs or barrel, railing or parapet, and abutments and wingwalls. Luten was an important promoter and builder of the reinforced concrete arch form in the early-20th century. Examples of Reinforced Concrete Luten Arch 1. Illinois River Bridge (1922), Benton County, AR. NRHP listed 1988 in Benton County MRA. 2. Harp Creek Bridge (1928), Newton County, AR. NRHP listed 1990 in Historic Bridges of Arkansas MPS. 3. Andrew J. Sullivan Bridge (1928), Whitley County, KY. Determined NRHP eligible by SHPO. 4. American Legion Memorial Bridge (1930), Grand Traverse County, MI. NRHP listed 2000 in Highway Bridges of Michigan MPS. 5. Andrew J. Sullivan Bridge (1928), spanning Cumberland River, Williamsburg vicinity, Whitley County, KY. HAER KY-51. 6. Milwaukee Street Bridge (1930), spanning Rock River, Watertown, Jefferson County, WI. HAER WI-33. Figures 3-50 and 3-51 depict examples of Luten closed and open spandrel designs. 3-59
Page 1 and 2: Chapter 3—Historic Context for Co
Page 7: Chapter 3—Historic Context for Co

Gulph Creek Stone Arch Bridge - Delaware Department of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?